Greg Berge writes:
 
>It should be explained around tourny time every year.  Hopefully, *many*
>people are new to the list every year, and they have no way to know this
>gets thrashed through each year.  Also, there has been so much
>poorly-phrased and even incorrect information about the selection process
>the last few seasons, even those of us who have been here forever are still
>not entirely confident that anybody knows what's really going on.  It's up
>to those who do really know to put the information in an accessible form
>and clear up the inevitable misunderstandings.
 
>As far as USCHO having the articles on it -- personally I've never been to
>USCHO for any reason other than to pick up scores, and I consider myself a
>fairly atypically highly adverb-abusing and motivated (read: obsessed) fan.
> You can't assume everyone uses the resources available.  The list is, at
>its best, an inclusive entity.
 
        Greg, you missed the opportunity to point out that The Big Red
What? also has material dedicated to furthering the understanding of
the process, namely an explanation of how it works at
<http://www.slack.net/~whelan/cgi-bin/tbrw.cgi?pairwise>, an
interactive walk through the procedure using the current numbers at
<http://www.slack.net/~whelan/cgi-bin/tbrw.cgi?tourney> and a weekly
"If the Season Ended Today" feature at
<http://www.slack.net/~whelan/cgi-bin/tbrw.cgi?pcurrent>.  Do you
think I should post the static documents to the list to enlighten the
people who can't or won't access the web pages?
 
        BTW, questions like "can Clarkson drop out with a quintafinal
loss?" will be easier to answer in a week, when there will only be
147456 possible outcomes of the conference tournaments.  (If that
sounds scary, there will only be 144 possibilties going into the final
day.)  I'm planning to put up a "what if" page that lets people
project the outcomes of conference tourneys and see what the numbers
would look like.  One could also write an automated script that checks
all 147456 possibilites and determines definitively which teams have a
lock on at-large bids, but that one is not going to be me, at least
not this year.  Charlie?
 
>> I don't understand the reluctance of people to believe a simple fact:
>> The committee goes strictly by the numbers.
 
>Just because the system is not arbitrary does not mean it is simple.  The
>NC$$ does not have a stellar reputation for fairness or logic (ill deserved
>or not), and as mentioned above, we are so awash in predictions,
>explanations, and ratings that the straight dope gets lost.
 
        In the NCAA's defense, they seem to be much more communicative
this year about what methods they're using.  But the system does bear
repeated explanation, especially since it's *not* as simple as ranking
the teams in the order of the PWR.  The PWR gives an approximate
ordering, but when it comes down to individual decisions of who stays
and who goes, it's the comparisons between the teams in question that
matter.
                                         John Whelan, Cornell '91
                                     Official Scorer/PA Announcer
                                        U of Utah Ice Hockey Club
                                               <[log in to unmask]>
                      <http://www.cc.utah.edu/~jtw16960/joe.html>
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.